Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/36468/2025 of HIMANSHU AHUJA AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011052612025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana; persuasive elsewhere. |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether FIR under Section 306 IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise between parties, when the allegations are vague and no prima facie offence is made out, in exercise of inherent powers. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) are of wide plenitude and may be exercised even in non-compoundable offences to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. This is especially so when allegations are vague, the essential ingredients of the offence are not made out, and the dispute is essentially personal/civil. The court scrutinized whether Section 306 IPC was made out on the FIR. Finding no specific and proximate allegations of instigation or abetment, it held the FIR and proceedings could be quashed, especially as the parties had compromised genuinely. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Wide discretion under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC, only exercise in fit cases to prevent abuse of process or secure justice; reiterated that mere vague allegations and absence of specific instigation/action precludes applicability of Section 306 IPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No.245 dated 06.12.2016 registered under Section 306 IPC at PS Dera Bassi on the basis of a complaint alleging that petitioners abetted the suicide of Vishal Kumar. No suicide note left by the deceased. Parties arrived at a compromise on 08.07.2025. The Magistrate found the compromise genuine, free from coercion. The allegations in the FIR were vague, with no detail as to how abetment occurred. State opposed quashment; complainant supported it. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that FIRs under Section 306 IPC (Abetment of Suicide), though non-compoundable, can be quashed where allegations are vague and do not prima facie make out the offence, especially in light of a genuine compromise.
- Clarifies that mere allegations of harassment, without specific acts of instigation or abetment proximate to suicide, cannot sustain prosecution under Section 306 IPC.
- The inquiry in compromise-based quashing must also examine whether the FIR actually discloses the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
- The State’s opposition does not preclude quashing if allegations lack substance and parties have genuinely settled.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed the wide ambit of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC, citing Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh.
- Distinguished between serious offences affecting society at large (which usually cannot be quashed on compromise) and cases where the dispute is essentially private/civil.
- Referred to Laxmi Narayan, Daxaben, and other Supreme Court precedents explaining that non-compoundable offences with civil character may be quashed, but not those involving heinous crime—subject to case-by-case scrutiny.
- Analyzed the essential requirements of Section 306 IPC, citing Amalendu Pal, Chitresh Kumar Chopra, Gangula Mohan Reddy, Ude Singh, and Kamaljit Kaur: there must be proximate instigation or abetment, with some clear mens rea and action leading to suicide.
- Noted that in this case, the FIR lacked specifics about abetment, and the allegations were vague and general.
- Quashing was warranted both because no prima facie case was made out and because a genuine compromise had been verified.
- Held that permitting prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process, and quashing would secure the ends of justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Parties have amicably settled their dispute, as reflected in the compromise dated 08.07.2025.
- Allegations in the FIR are vague, lacking any specific attribution of instigation or abetment.
- Continuance of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and constitute an abuse of process.
Respondent No. 2 / Complainant
- No objection to quashing the FIR on the basis of the compromise.
- Confirmed the compromise was genuine and without coercion.
State
- Opposed the petition, arguing that Section 306 IPC involves a heinous and grave crime.
- Cited Daxaben v. State of Gujarat to support the proposition that such offences should generally not be quashed based on compromise.
Factual Background
The case arose out of FIR No.245 dated 06.12.2016, registered at PS Dera Bassi under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners, on allegations of abetting the suicide of Vishal Kumar. The FIR alleged harassment/pressure but gave no specific details of abetment. No suicide note was left by the deceased. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a written compromise on 08.07.2025. The Magistrate verified and reported the compromise as genuine and voluntary. The complainant supported quashing, while the State opposed.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment extensively discusses Section 306 IPC, highlighting its essential ingredients (abetment, proximate instigation, mens rea).
- The court analyzes the scope of Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC), affirming the breadth of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, even in non-compoundable offences, depending on the case’s facts.
- No reading down or constitutional provisions invoked; the interpretation is aligned with established judicial guidelines and previous Supreme Court cases.
Procedural Innovations
- The court required parties to appear before the Magistrate for verification of the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise, whose report formed the basis for the High Court’s consideration.
- No new procedural precedents, evidence requirements, or suo motu directions were set.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Decision follows and affirms the Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents regarding inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), especially in the context of quashing FIRs based on compromise when no prima facie offence is made out.